On Fanon's Manichean Delirium

8/10/2019 On Fanon's Manichean Delirium

1/9

O N

FANON S MANICHEAN

DELIRIUM

by lv ar o Reyes

ntroduction

F

OR

M NY

readers, entering Fanon's first chap-

ter

of

The

Wretched

of

the Earthcan be a bit

dis-

concerting,

not

only

for the

positions expounded

there concerning violence,

but

also

for

what

ap-

pearsas animplicit affirmation of thevery Ma n-

icheanism that accordingto Fanon subtendsthe

colonial order. Thatis,when Fanon states thatthe

colonial worldis aworld dividedintwo, it is in

no way

a

simple denunciation,

but in

his eyes,

the

objective delineation of tbeparameters of pos-

sibility within the existing colonial situation.As

Fanon reads

the

scope

and

direction

of the

initial

movements

of the

colonized,

he

concludes that

their actions do no t reinforce, no r seek to replicate,

this initial situation. Rather,theentire truth of

the Wretched's movementis to actually split

the world in two and create a rupture from

the entirety of this situation that will allowthe

Wretched

to

destroy both

the

colonizer

and

figu-

ratively, themselves as colonized. This wouldbe to

turn away from thephysical violenceof theanti-

colonial war in

a

strict sense, and toward the inno -

vation required

to

bring

a

new subject

of

political

action into existence. As Fanon repeats again

and

again (despite many sub sequent m isreadings to the

contrary),thesuccessorfailureof theWretched

depends on their capacity to achieve what untu

thenhadrema ined, strictly speaking, impossible.

mbivalence

ambivalences

of

identification touch ed upon

in Fanon's previous writings, most specifically

with

his

invocation

of

Lacanian psychoanalysis

and its mirror stage of the T to approximate

the question of black psychopathology' in

chaptersix of

Black

Skin

White

Masks.ForHomi

Bhabha,it is certainlyin the opening pagesof

Wretched soenmeshedin theanticolonial struggle

of revolutionary Algeria, where Fanon is forced

to impede

the

exploration

of

the...ambivalent,

uncertain questions

of

colonial desire.

The

state

of

emergency from which

he

[Fanon]

writes demands more insurgent answers, more

immediate identifications. ^

In other words, Fanon's affirmation of an

inversionofcolonial Manicheanism in Wretched

has been interpretedas akindof deviation from

Black Skin White Masks.^Although one could

derive such

an

argument from Fanon's writings,

the above approach treats Fanon's method

of

describing

the

unfolding

of the

various m omen ts

of the national revolutionary impulseas if these

moments existed as independent ends.

A sATOSekyi-Otu has pointed out,theadmo-

.ZAJiition of what Bhabha calls Fanon's mo re

imm ediate identification with the colonized

in

Wretched

hinges on isolating the moment of

reverse Manicheanism in Fanon from the

larger unfolding of Fanon's own dialectical

narrative of decolonization.* Such an approach

treats

the

question

of

anti-racist racism

and

race

war as if

these were

the

final rather


2/9

dialectic of alterity to inte rrup t what it

reads as Fanon's appropriations of a classically

Hegelian inflected narrative of alienation and

disalienation. In that narrative, the moment of

enc oun ter implicit in colonization is the unfolding

of a simple term in its becoming other, and the

mo me nt of decolonization as the negation of

the negation, ^ the return to itself as an achieved

concept. H ere not only do we see reduced Fanon's

own thoughts on Manicheanism, but we are also

led to underestimate the achievements Fanon

intuits when this Manicheanism is confronted

and effectively crushed by the thought and action

of the colonized.

World Div ide d in Two

N

OT ONLY is Fan on's world divided in tw o

devoid of social ambivalences between col-

onizer and colonized, but Fanon goes so far as

to claim that the distinction itself exists at the

level of a difference in species, '' which he fur-

the r describes as congenitally antag onistic due

to the very reification sec reted and nurtured by

the colonial situation. ' The language of species

used by Fanon is chosen from the vocabulary of

the colonists themselves, whose dehumanization

of the colonized subject leads them to speak in

zoological term s when referring, for instance,

to the yellow multitudes. Th at

is,

for Fan on, the

colonists do not tire of referring to the colonized

in terms of ...ho rde s, ...stink, ...swarming , ...

seedling...

etc.

In addition, these zoological categories are

assigned a hierarchy of value; the animalistic

colonized is incapable of holding human values

and sthus considered the quintessence of evil. ^

These differentiations, stemming from a reduc-

tion to the biological, then lead the colonists to

the necessity of p rotectin g the ruling species from

infection em ana ting from the natives.' Th is is

a protection that only arrives by the application

of the Aristotelian logic of mu tual exclusion ex-

pressed in the strict spatial compartmentalization

of the colony into European and Native quarters

(of which South African apartheid was paradig-

matic but not exceptional for Fan on). Th at is,

the heart of the colonists' project can be delineat-

ed through the geographical configuration and

classification

[s]

which it then circularly employs

The colonists' sector is a sector built to last, all stone

and steel. It's a sector of lights and pav ed road s, where

the trashcans constantly overflow with strange and

wonderful garbage, undreamed-of leftovers. The col-

onists' feet... are protected by solid shoes in a sector

where the streets are clean and smooth, without a pot-

hole,

without a stone.. .The colonist's sector is a white

folks'

sector, a sector of foreigners.'^

This sector could not stand in sharper distinc-

tion to the natives' quarters:

The native quarters, the shantytown, the Med ina,

the reservation, is a disreputable place inhabited by

disreputable people. You are born anywhere, anyhow.

You die anywhere, from anything. It's a world with

no space, people are piled one top of the other, the

shacks squeezed tightly together. The colonized sector

is a famished sector, hungry for bread, meat, shoes,

coal, and Ught... It is a sector of niggers, a sector of

towelheads.

Accordingly, in the colony there exists a near

confiuence between geographical location, spe-

cies/race, and social standing. That is, one's so-

cial position within colonial society is directly

correlated to which of these species, which of

these races, one belongs, which in tur n deter-

mines what physical location one inhabits in the

colony.'* A certain circularity should be noted

here between the classificatory schmas of the

zoological terms and the physical manifestation

of apartheid. That is, there is a relay between the

creation of the colonized as an epistemologically

know able object and the spatial segregation, o

locational fixing of that object within the colo-

ny. Th e circularity of this bio-geo graphic d eter-

minism is cap tured nicely by Charles Mills, who

explains, you are what you are in part because

you originate from a certain kind of space, and

that space has those properties in part because it

is inhabited by creatures likeyourself. ''

I

T BECOMES clear then from these descriptions

that the colonial project is the production of

a Ma nichean world. In order to keep these

worlds apart, domination cannot be hidden; the

zone of the colonist and that of the native face

each other separated by napalm and rifle butts,

direcy opposed but never in the service of a

higher unity.' ^ That is, for Fanon, the colonial

world stands in immediate contradistinction to


3/9


4/9

referto it.'' TheM aniche an reality providesthe

material from which the colonized draws

to

move

from fixedness to action, evenif this minimal

dem an d is still firmlyin thegripsof reaction.

On Violence

H

AVING BROKEN with fatalism and identified

the colonist

as the

externalizable cause

of oppression, thenativeisalso ableto identify

the mechanism through which that oppression

is made

a

realityviolence. That

is, as

Fanon

states,it is the settler's unmediated violence that

has shownthenative onceand for allthat colo-

nialismis not a machine capableof thinking,a

body endowed with reason.It is naked violence

and only gives

in

when confronted with greater

violence. '^Itis the violenceofthe colonizer that

has created the colonized; it

is

through their bay-

onets and cann on fire that they have destroyed

the ve ry the social fabricofnative Hfe, e.g., econ-

omy, lifestyle, and modes of dress.^' Thus it is

through this violence that the colonist not only

imposes a separation of the speciesbut in fact

fabricates itsother,thecolonized.If thecolo-

nistscansay tha tthenativesareanimals,itisbe-

cause their violencehasdone everything possible

to reduce themto ananimal-ke existence (all the

more vicious,for never having succeeded).Yet,

according to Fanon, duetothe lawof reciprocal

hom ogeneity that characterizes theM anichean

realityofthe colonial situation, this violence em a-

nating from the colonist shows the native the pa th

that he m ust taketofreedom ... colonialism only

loosens its hold when the knifeis atits throat. ^*

Directly following

in

this line

of

Manichean

inversion. Fanon states that

the

colonized

man

finds his freedom in and through violence. ^'^If

the Manicheanism of the colonial situationhas

provided

an end

goal

for the

nativethe expul-

sionof thecolonizerthen thedaily imposition

of colonialism through visible violence has in-

dicated

the

means

by

which this goal might

be

achieved. That is, it is thedirectandorganized

violenceof a unified people that diminishesthe

capacity

of

the m etropolis to act, forcing the colo-

nizer eventually to abandon the colony.'^ We here

to move beyond

the

initial min imal dem and

beyond reaction, that the colonized can move

beyond violenceandtowardaproperly activeac

tion.

Manicheanism Partisan Struggle

and Strategy:

Splitting the World in Two

S

EEING TH Tthe questionofviolence isinfact

subset of the larger issueof Manicheanism

what

are

we

to

make

of

Fanon's insistence

on th

forceof the colonized's Manichean inversionof

the colonial situation? That is, should weview

Fanon's sympathy for this inversion, as Bhabha

has done,as an oversimplified identification with

the plight

of

the colonized induced by the exigen

ciesof ananticolonial war?ForFanon, although

this inversionwasabsolutely necessary to break

fromthestructureofcolonialism,as he iscarefu

to pointout, it is in no waysufficient for a suc

cessful process

of

decolonization.

It is

importan

to rememberthereasonfor thenecessityof thi

inversion. Thefirst reasonis that throughthe

Manichean inversion, thecolonized are ableto

see that colonialismdid notariseout ofontolog

ical necessity

but

rather through

the

contingen

historical actionsof the colonizer. That is,colo

nizationis ahistorical phenomenoninwhichth

privileged agentsare thecolonists. A lthoughth

existenceof this phenomenon limitstheconduc

of

the

colonized,

the

realization

of its

historicity

simultaneously reopensthefieldofhistoryto th

possibilityoftheir own agency.

Second,

and

perhaps more importantiy,

th

rediscovery of historical possibility is accompa

nied by the acknowledgment that ontological

and

historical justificationsof colonization serve only

to obscure theissueof force, and thereforeth

realization that the violent imposition of colo

nialismcan beansweredinthe violent actionso

the colonized. In this turn of events, successo

failure doesnot liesimplyin a tactical defeato

the colonizerbut inthe enorm ous strategic victo

ry achieved

in

exposing the absolute exhau stion

of politics unde rthecolonial structure.^ Itisa

this poin t

of

exhaustion that, according to Fanon


5/9

By viewing both colonization and decoloni-

zation as simply a question of relative stren gth

and thus of o pen struggle, the colonized have giv-

en up on government inquiries and searches

for justi ce within the colonial context.' ' Th us

the logic of exclusion that maintains the colonial

structure resurfaces as a point of excess over and

above this structure from which the colonized can

be clear tha t the only legitimacy sustaining the co-

lonial regime is tha t of force.*' Restructu ring the

world is possible.

A

s

F ANON

notes (as early as Black Skin,

White

Masks ,

this realization is worldw ide,

and subjects throughout the Third World were

sh attering their chains with the example of the

Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu to emulate. That

is,

through the organization of force, and more

specifically the cond uct of guerilla wa r (what

F anon refers to as tha t instrum ent of violence of

the colonized ), a Dien Bien Phu was now with-

in reach of every colonized subject.*^ The Man-

ichean inversion allows the colonized to see that

colonization is a question of the organization of

force, and that that kind of organization, through

guerilla warfare, is imminently within reach.

Th rou gh this analysis of the exhaustion of

politics, F anon is firmly within the formation

of the Third World partisan. This was a figure

developed independently and in particular plac-

es and instances, but which was formed within

the overall situation of colonialism and came

to conclusions strikingly similar to those set out

by Mao Zedong, whom Carl Schmitt called the

new C lausew itz (or as we might say today, an

inverted C lausewitz), com paring him to the nine-

teenth-century Cerman military theorist who

famously declared: war is the contin uation of

politics by other me ans. M ao writes:

War is the continua tion of p olitics. In this sense

wa r is politics and wa r itself is a political action; since

ancient times there has not been a war that did not

have a political character... When politics develops

to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by

tlie usual means, war breaks out to sweep away those

obstacles in the way.. .It can therefore be said that pol-

itics is war withou t bloodshed while war is politics with

bloodshed.

This conclusion not only produces a challenge

tion to those would-be or semi- sympathizers who

mistakenly reduce the possible agency of the colo-

nized to a compromise or action within the colonial

stmcture. Fanon righdy notes that these objections

to the organization of force and to the unleashing

of violence repeated a certain developmentalist

logic tha t makes the colonized losers from the sta rt.

To dem onstrate this oft-repeated logic. F anon cites

a passage from Friedrich Engels'

Anti Durhing

that

is worth reproduc ing in its entirety:

Just as Crusoe could proc ure a sword forhimself we

are equally entitled to assume that one fine m ornin g

Friday might appear with a loaded revolver in his

han d, and then the whole force relationship is

inverted. Friday commands and it is Crusoe who

has to drudge . . .

So,

then, the revolver triumphs over

the sword; and this will probably make even the

most childish axiomatician comprehend that force

is no m ere a ct of will, but requires very preliminary

conditions before it can com e into opera tion, that is

to say, instruments, the more perfect of which van-

quish the less perfect; moreover, that these instru-

ments have to be produced, which also implies that

the producer of more perfect instruments of force,

vulgo

arms, vanquishes the producer of the less per-

fect instrument, and that, iti a word, the triumph

of force is based on the production of arms, and

this in turn on production in generaltherefore on

econo mic power, on the econom ic order, on

the material means which force has at its disposal.**

W

ITHIN Engels' tex t. F anon saw the

construction of an argument that attempts

to bury confiict within the discourse of economic

development, nullifying the question of political

Wl and thus seemingly freezing tlie relations of

force throughout timefatalism, resignation

and apathy. Given the pervasiveness of this

logic, even within the nationalist parties in the

colonies in which the anticolonial struggle had

been defeated before it was even initiated, it is

impo rtant to highlight F anon's understanding that

the formation of the consciousness of species/

race struggle brought on by the inversion of

colonial Manicheanism ran directiy counter to the

logic exemplified by Engels' text. That is, to use

the terminology developed by Michel Foucault

while analyzing a strikingly parallel situation, what

Fanon is describing is a paradigmatic case of the

formation of the historical/political discourse of

the partisan, which faces off against the juridical/


6/9

Reversibility Another Politics

A

CCORDING

to

Foucault, juridical-philosophic

discourse

is the

discourse

of

sovereignty,

which begins with three pre-given concepts:

law,

the unity

of

power,

and the

subject.*^ By starting

with the individual (thesubject) aspre-given,

sovereignty is able to present subjection as the

necessary given in any relationship of power.*'

It

is

worth noting how strong the connection

be-

tween

the

production

of the

individual

and the

structure

of

subjection is

for

Fanon as well. As

he

states, first among

the

values that

the

colonist

tries

to

inculcate into the native intellectual is that

of individualism:

The colonialist bourgeoisie hammered into the

colonized mindthenotionof asocietyof individuals

where eachislockedin his subjectivity, where wealth

lies

in

thought.

But the

colonized intellectual

who is

lucky enough

to

bunker down with the people during

the liberation struggles, will soon discover

the

falsity

of this theory. Involvement in the organization of

struggle will already introduce him to a different

vocabtdary. Brother, sister, com rad e.

Thu s, in sharp contrast

to

sovereign discou rse,

historical/political discourse begins with the

sit-

uation

of

domination, with

the

establishment

of

sovereignty throughthedefeatof oneportionof

society by another. Therefore, and much as Fanon

himself sees,itis the colonist who fabricated and

continuestofabricate the colonized subject, the

historical/political discourse

of the

partisan sees

the individual

and his or her

subjection

not as a

necessary pre-given but as ma nufac tured within

the relations

of

power (Fanon 2004, 2).

To

quote

Foucault,

the

emphasis

of

historical/political

dis-

course

is on

how actual relations

of

subjugation

man ufacture subjects (FoucaiJt

2003,

45). Im-

portantly then, politicsforthe partisan (i.e.,asde -

scribed by Fanon in the Third World movement as

a whole)farexceedsthe political institutions of

any given society which

are in

fact

a

subset

of a

relation

of

force wthin which the subjugated,

the

colonized,

act

along w ith

the

colonizer.

The

logic

of the partisan, according to Foucault, is that pow -

er does

not

emanate from

the

sovereign; rather,

sovereignty itself is the expression

of a

given rela-

tion of force that involves the entirety

of a

society.

Asa consequence, thebinary or Manichean

which subtends sovereignty, tha t subject which es-

tablishes itself between the adversaries,inthe cen

ter and above them, imposing one general law and

foundingareconciliatory orde r whichisdirectl

challenged by the partisan insistence tha t you mus

belong to o ne side

or

another in this war.*'

Perhaps

in

light

of

these insights we

can

mor

fully explore

the

discussion

of

Fanon's apparen

praise

of the

M anichea n logic

of

decolonization

Within this context,theissueof violence canno

simply be reduced to physical force; as Fano

states, the occupier can easily phase out th

violent aspectsofhis pres ence. It therefore migh

more productively

be

seen

as the

mechanism

through which anticolonial m ovements as a whole

attempted

to

link the issue

of

strategy

and

tactic

to political outcomes;

a

new relation

of

force.^

This necessitates

a

logic which

has the

virtu

of positing

all

relations

of

force, unlike

the lo

ic presented earlierbyEngelsand tbenational

ist bourgeoisie parties,as purely contingentan

thus immanently reversible(aninsight that toda

seems somewhat obvious, keeping in mind tha

such flippancy is only possible than ks

to the

ver

process

of

decolonization in which Fanon is so in

tensely immersed). Furthermore,

if the

colonia

situation

is in

fact composed from

top to

bottom

as

a

relation

of

force,

or a

war, that exceeds

th

institutions

of

what

in the

West has been terme

the political (that space containedin theinter

action be tween state and civil society), then in rec

ognizing that war the colonized would haveto d

far more than merely expel the colonizer. The

would

in

fact have

to

produc e entirely new spac

es

for

political action; their aim would thus hav

to

be to

achieve

the,

until then, impossible,

an

change politics itself

Beyo nd War Innova te

I

T IS EQU LLYimportant to note that, througho

the first chapter of Wretched Fanon captu

the virtue of the inverted Manicheanism o

the colonized while never himself viewing tha

Manicheanism

as an end.

Rather,

as he

state

on

a

number

of

occasions, this demand

( th

last shall become first )

is

simply

the

minima

demand which

he

will later explain

is

relate

to

the

expression

of a

vague form

of a

nationa


7/9

very little happens in the spaces of the colonizer

or in those of the colonized. In fact. Fanon refers

to this entire "reality," the entirety of the spaces

in the given order of places of colonization, as

the "zone of death." But within the space of the

colonized, the establishment of an "anti-racist

racism " is an initial action that like all first actions

for Fanon is mere reaction, but nevertheless a re-

action (the Man ichean inversion) that can be split

within itself

Fanon explains, this reaction, like aU reaction,

is more likely than not to continue forever in the

logic of "reciprocal homogeneity" and "hate"

that characterizes the colonial situation. But the

reaction that brings to light the "exhaustion of

politics" vthin the colonial structure, far beyond

the mere deployment of physical violence, leads

to the collective realization that colonization/

decolonization must be a question of "relative

strength" between

tw o

distinct subjective forces.

In this realization the colonized has stepped

onto the scene to smash the self-satisfied fullness

of the colonizer, not only reintroducing the

possibility of a reversal of fortune, the possibility

of moving from "persecuted to persecutor," but

more importandy, the possibility of what Fanon

would term "scission," a break from the colonial

structure, the space for the existence of another

subject altogether. In Fanon's words, they have

introduced the possibility of turning away from

Europe and affirming "the new." Therefore, for

Fanon , the spaces of the colonized are themselves

split in two between mere reaction, firmly within

the "zone of turbulence," and what Fanon terms

"the zone of action."

HIS "zone of action" however can not by

definition exist

between

colonizer and

colonized, as Homi Bhabha would have it, as

each of these figures and therefore everything

betweenthem is stiU firmly in the "zone of dea th."

Rather, the "zone of action" comes into being

in the point of scission, the point of decision of

the colonized to destroy themselves as colonized,

and "the new," or as Fanon had previously put

it, "the unforeseeable." In other words, the

Wretched have caUed the bluff of the colonizer,

and to the colonizers frequent exclamations, "you

are not like us " they have set out, through an

Wretched , to make this statement an unqualified

truth, answering, "We wiU make ourselves far

more different than you can imagine " They have

set out to achieve the alteration of being, to bring

into existence another element, in but not of, the

colonial situationthemselves as an independent

subjective force.

TT^INALLY, we should be careful here, as the pro-

X duction of an actual duality, the produc tion

of th e Wretched as an active subjective element is

irreconcilable w ith the first element (i.e. colonial-

ism), with regard to the question of difference.

The first element, Europe's Manichean dualism

("a world divided in two") is the mechanism for

the production and reproduction of a purely

monological discourse. In contrast, the struggle

of the colonized to bring into existence an ac-

tual duality (the Third World partisan's struggle

described by Fanon as "Split[ting] the world in

two") is the onto-historical condition of possibility

for the end of that monologue, for difference. Far

from the today fashionable declarations of "Long

live difference " TheWretchedo fthe Earth remind

us that difference today stands on the shoulders

of millions of anticolonial militants.

n notes

1. Bha bha, Ho mi K., 77 Locatim of Culture (New York:

Routledge, 1994)44.

2.

Bhabha, Homi K., "Remembering Fanon,"New Formations

7,(1987): 118-124.

3.Gibson, Nigel, "Fanon and the Pitfalls of Cultural Studies,"

FrantzFanon:CriticalPerspectives, ed. Anthony C . Alessa

ni (New York: Roudedge, 1999) 102.

4. Sekyi-Otu, Ato,Fanon s Lkaiectic ofExperience (Cambridg

Harvard University Press, 1996).

5.

Badiou, Alain, Theoryofthe Subject(New York: C ontinuum

2009)3-12.

6. Fanon, Frantz, Th eWretchedo fthe Earth(New York: Grov

Press,

2004) 1.

7. Ibid., 2.

8. Ibid., 7.

9. Ibid., 6.

10. Gibson, Nigel, Fanon: The Pastcoimial Ima^nao n

(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003) 108.

11.

Fanon,Wretched 3.

12.Ibid., 4.

13.Ibid.

14.Ibid., 5.


8/9

16.Ibid,.

4.

17.

Ibid.

18. Ibid.,

3.

fBtack Skin,White Masks,

is

productively read

alongside, and against, Hegel's Phmomenotogy o

Spirit,

I propose that these descriptionsof alackof asitefor

mediational education within colonial society willbeseen

to

be

formulated

by

Fanon more directly

in

relation

to

and against, Hegel'sEtementsofthe Philosophyof

Right.

n

other words, what Fanon ismos t specifically referencing

in theabove parag raph is thelack

of

existence

of

civil

society within thecolony.SeeG.W.F. He gel,Etements of

the Phitesophy ofRight (New York: Cambridge University

Press, 1991)219-274.

19.Ibid.,

5.

20 .Ibid.,4.

21 . Ibid.

22.Ibid.,

17.

23 .

Ibid., 31.

24 .Ibid.,16.

25 .

Ibid.

26 .Ibid.,6.

27 . Ibid.,

10.

28 .

Ibid.,5 9.

29 . Ibid.,16.

30.

Ibid.,

10.

[Fanon's phrase invokes Jesus's words in Matthew

20:16: So the tost shatt be

irst

and theirstast:for many are

catted but ew chosen (King Jam es Bible). Ed.]

31.

Fanon,

Wretched

50; and

Sartre, Jean-Paul,Btack Orpheus

(Cambridge: H arvard University Press, 1988) 296.

32.Fanon,Wretched 23 .

33.Ibid.,

6.

34.

Ibid., 23.

35.Ibid., 86.

36.

Ibid., 30.

37.Ibid.,1.

38.Gihson, Fanon:The PostcotoniatImaginaon, 119.

39. Fanon,Wretched 83 .

40 .Ibid., 61 .

41 .Ibid.,42-43.

42 .Ibid., 26 and 31 .

43 .MaoZedongandKnight, Nick,M aoZedong on Diateccat

Materiatism: Writings onPhilosophy 1937(Armonk:

M.E.

Sharpe, 1990) 135-136.

44 . Friedrich Engelsasquoted in Fanon's 77;Wretchedofthe

Earth,25 .

45 .

Foucault, Michel,SocietyMustBe Defended(New York:Pic-

ador, 2003) 57.

46 .Ibid., 44.

47 .Ibid., 29, 30.

u scri e

t

THEBLACKSCHOLAR

INTEGRATION

Indiv iduals- 35.00yr.

Insti tut ions- 148.00

yr.

Enclosedis

Start

my

sub today.

PREPAYMENT IS REQUIRED

Send checkormoney order

with your order.

Name

Address

City

State/Zip Code.

Paradigm Publishers

c/o Journals Office

5589

Arapahoe Ave.

Suite 206A

Boulder CO 80303

joumals@paradigmpublishers com


9/9

Copyright of Black Scholar is the property of Paradigm Publishers, on behalf of The Black Scholar and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

On Fanon's Manichean Delirium